ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

The Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: nht92-6.39

DATE: May 25, 1992

FROM: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs for Motor Coach Industries, Inc., and Transportation Manufacturing Corporation

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: NHTSA Pre-emptive Authority With Respect to New York Program Bill No. 253

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/19/92 from Paul J. Rice to C.N. Littler (A39; Std. 208; VSA 103)

TEXT:

I have attached, pursuant to our telecon of May 14th, a copy of New York Governor Cuomo's Program Bill No. 253 for a departmental review. We believe that a legitimate argument of interference with Federal pre-emptive authority exists with respect to this proposed State legislation.

The Governor's Bill will require all buses, certified or licensed within New York, or entering New York and performing substantial revenue service; to be equipped with seat belts at all passenger seating positions. The Motor Vehicles Safety Act (1966) Sec 103(d) appears to prohibit the State from mandating vehicle safety standards to a higher level than the Federal standards on all but State owned vehicles.

Therefore, following your review of the attached bill, I would greatly appreciate a legal opinion regarding this issue and/or any other points of note.

Thank you for your time and consideration regarding this matter, with kindest regards, I remain, respectfully yours.

Attachment GOVERNOR'S PROGRAM BILL 1992 Memorandum

RE: AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law, in relation to the requirement for seat belts on buses, the reexamination and disqualification of certain bus drivers, and the obligations of bus drivers and motor carriers

PURPOSE:

To increase bus driver qualification standards, to improve the system for providing information regarding the driving recOrd of bus drivers, and to require that certain buses be equipped with seat belts.

SUMMARY OR PROVISIONS:

Section 1 of the bill adds a new subdivision 6 to section 383 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 shall be equipped with seat safety belts, except for buses operated by motor carriers which do not operate more than 100 days or more than ten thousand vehicle miles in the State.

Section 2 of the bill adds a new section 509-bb to the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the reexamination of bus drivers who have a total of three driving convictions and/or accidents within a three-year period. One of the driver's convictions or accidents will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The type of accidents which will be counted, as well as the type of reexamination to be administered, will be determined by regulation. If the driver fails the reexamination, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles may suspend, revoke or impose restrictions on the driver's license, and the driver must pass the examination before being authorized to operate a bus.

Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the bill amend sections 509-c(1)(d), 509-c(2)(d), 509-cc(1)(d) and 509-cc(2)(e) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively, to require one-year disqualifications of bus drivers and school bus drivers upon the conviction of three or more serious driving violations, as defined by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or upon the conviction of five or more driving violations of any kind, within a three-year period. One conviction of such drivers will not be counted in that total if the driver successfully completes a motor vehicle accident prevention course approved by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the bill add two new paragraphs to sections 509-c (1), 509-c(2), 509-cc(1) and 509-cc(2) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, respectively: 1) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has failed a reexamination under new section 509-bb of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, which is added by section 2 of this bill; and 2) to require a one-year disqualification of a bus driver or school bus driver who has been the subject of such a reexamination, if the driver is convicted of a serious driving violation, is convicted of three or more driving violations of any kind, or is involved in two or more vehicle accidents within an eighteen month period following such reexamination. The type of accidents which will be counted will be determined by regulations of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Section 11 of the bill amends section 509-d(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must obtain the driving record of the applicant and investigate the applicant's employment record.

Section 12 of the bill amends section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to provide that motor carriers annually shall require each bus driver to provide the carrier with a list of all traffic violations and all accidents in which the driver was involved during the prior twelve months.

Section 13 of the bill amends section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to require the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to notify a motor carrier of any convictions or accidents of a bus driver resulting from the operation of any motor vehicle. Motor carriers will be required to establish an escrow account with the Department of Motor Vehicles, which shall charge a fee to defray the costs of the notification.

Section 14 of the bill amends section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law to increase the minimum civil penalty for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations from $250 to $500 per violation, and to increase the maximum penalty from $1000 to $2,500 per violation.

This bill takes affect on the first day of September next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law, provided that no reexamination or disqualification shall be required by the changes made by sections two through ten of the bill solely as a result of convictions or accidents which occurred prior to such effective date.

EXISTING LAW:

Under Section 383 Of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, seat belts are required on passenger vehicles manufactured after 1965 and on school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987, but are not required on other buses.

Under section 506 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require the reexamination of any driver who has been involved in three accidents within an eighteen-month period. If the driver fails the examination, the Commissioner may revoke or suspend the driver's license, or may impose restrictions on the use of the license.

Article 19-A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law currently provides for a one-year disqualification of bus drivers who accumulate nine or more points within an eighteen-month period. There is no current requirement for disqualification based upon a driver's involvement in multiple accidents.

Section 509-d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires that, prior to hiring a new bus driver, a motor carrier must "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant, but does not require that the record actually be obtained. Section 509-i of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to provide notification of new driving convictions of bus drivers to those motor carriers which request such information and pay the necessary fee. Section 509-f of the Vehicle and Traffic Law requires bus drivers to inform motor carriers of driving convictions, but not accidents.

Under section 509-j of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles can require that a motor carrier pay a civil penalty between $250 and $1000 for violations of the motor carrier laws and regulations.

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT:

The tragic bus accident which occurred in Warren County on April 11, 1992 and resulted in the death of two young students from Long Island highlighted three deficiencies in our current law. First, present law does not permit the disqualification of bus drivers based upon prior accidents. Second, the current system of employer review of employees' prior accidents and driving convictions is insufficient. Finally, although seat belts are currently required on cars and school buses, they are not required on charter buses, even if those buses are carrying school children. This bill seeks to cure those deficiencies in the law, in order to reduce the chances of a similar accident in the future.

First, this bill provides that a bus driver who has a total of three serious driving convictions or accidents within a three-year period must undergo a new examination, including a road test. Driving convictions and accidents which occur while the driver is operating a personal vehicle are included in this total. If the driver fails to pass the road test, the driver will be disqualified from operating a bus for one year. If the driver passes the road test, no penalty is imposed, but a subsequent serious conviction or two subsequent accidents within an eighteen-month period will result in a one-year disqualification. In addition, any driver having three convictions within a three-year period will be disqualified for one year.

Second, this bill will reform the present conviction and accident information system. Under current law, a motor carrier is not permitted to hire a new driver unless they "make an inquiry" for the driving record of the applicant from every state in which the applicant worked or held a license during the preceding three years. Simply making the inquiry is all that is necessary, however, and there is no requirement that the record actually be obtained. In addition, every year drivers must inform their employers of motor vehicle violations which have occurred during the prior twelve months, but they are not required to report accidents. Moreover, although DMV operates a system for informing motor carriers of new convictions of their drivers, the program is optional. This bill will correct these inadequacies by requiring that motor carriers actually obtain the driving records of applicants, by requiring that drivers inform their employers of accidents as well convictions each year, and by requiring that all motor carriers take part in DMV's driving conviction notification system.

Finally, State law presently requires that all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1987 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, but does not require seat belts on other buses. This bill requires that all buses manufactured after July 1, 1993 and operated in this State be equipped with seat belts, except for buses of motor carriers which do not conduct substantial business within this State.

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:

Any increased costs incurred by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a result of this bill will be accommodated within their present budget.

ID: nht92-2.50

DATE: 11/01/92 EST

FROM: Guy Boudreault

TO: U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/93 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Guy Boudreault (A40; Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT:

unfortunately, I am compelled to send you a copy of a letter sent by me to Mr. Wayne Mc Neil, the safety department head at Sunbury Transport Limited, in regard to the obligations imposed upon the drivers and asking him to act in reference to these present conditions.

I would appreciate your cooperation in regards to general rules applied within the United States relevent to the said letter. I sincerely think that safety on the roads are of major interest to you and therefore I consider it my duty to inform you as to the conditions imposed, although never expressed in writing.

I have confidence that Mr. Mc Neil will do his outmost to rectify the situation, nevertheless, I consider it my duty to report to you in order to get the whole story as to the application of the laws, for often have I seen drivers that I have worked with be charged in different accident cases causing death.

Thanking your for your cooperation in this matter, I remain respectfuly yours,

DATE

Subsequent to writing the following document, I did not send it immediately for I wanted to be sure that this document would be taken seriously considering that I am not very much educated and that many mistakes can be found in spelling as well as a lack of vocabulary to express myself reasonably well. However, I was rather encouraged to send it when the personnel company for which I work decided to give me a lay-off for lack of work. It also asked that I not send the present document for if I did, it would hurt the transportation industry. I do not believe for a minute that this would happen, but I do beleive that it might help other drivers to get better conditions in the future and thus have decided to go forward with this mailing and also have decided to walk away from driving as a proffession like many more before me. It is in my view a shame that company needs have become such important that workers' rights are diminished to the point of endangering public lives for the profit of too often subsidised companies who pride themselves in total disregard for their workers as well as the general public.

I have included a list of my calculations which can be revised at your will and have come up with the the following balance owing from the company to me. The personnel agency, has given me a part of this balance owing but has not as yet collected from the transport company and will definitely not collect all of the

amount for already, a member of the dispatching staff has refused to pay some time period claimed saying that my instructions were to go home on a certain day when in fact, he did not know that I was to wait for over eighteen (18) hours.

I finish my letter by asking that road transportation be looked into thouroughly and that logbooks be compared with payroll or tripsheets so as to find the real facts behind what every driver calls "SWINDLE SHEETS". May I add that in the last twenty-four years, my logbooks have been checked but four times, from where I seriously believe that encouragement to ignore laws is thereby given.

Respectfully yours, GUY BOUDREAULT

ILE PERROT, le 18 Octobre, 1992

Sunbury Transport Ltd Mr. Wayne McNeil P.O. Box 905 Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5B4

Mr. McNeil,

I hereby wish to inform you of my agravated state of mind in relation with work at your employ. Of course you will understand that I realy mean employment Sunbury Transport" contracted by "A & F Personell of Montreal, Montreal, driving at leased "Renteway" tractor and pulling either leased "Caravan" trailers or "Sunbury" trailers.

I thought this situation seems to be of the most complexe category, the fact remains that "Sunbury" transport is where I get (direct orders) as to the manner in which I must perform my duties and therefore, I firmly believe that I should direct my questions, worries and suggestions to you since you are the at the helm of the safety department for transport division. Many anomalies have conflicted with the terms of my employment in comparison to the first interview I have had with you in May 1992. As I describe the discrepencies I have found, I hope that you will understand as well as appreciate my present frustations.

I was lead to believe that "Sunbury Transport insisted to our driving legaly in all aspects of the law and that we must under no circumstance drive overlog, use two log books or the use of other means for bypassing any Canadian or U.S. laws. I was also promissed by you personally that we would be allowed plenty of time for deliveries, however this is definitely not the feeling I have gotten since I first started driving at your service on June 25th, 1992. I also was promised an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I have kept my end of the deal, but somehow I have difficulty in understanding the payroll. I have therefore tabulated my log book trips as well as my paychecks and at this point I cannot yet see the equilibrium between the two. I have mentioned before that as human beings, we needed time for meals, for showers, for shaving

and sleep. It is my finding that the aforementioned have been ignored and that the appointments are taken with customers much too soon giving us no time our basic personal needs. On this subject may I suggest that (E T A)s (estimated time of arrival) be annulled. In my experience, only airlines have such ETAs' and in many cases they are delayed although they do not have to deal with scales, police, DOT checks, speed limits, school buses, school zones, stop signs, traffic lights, heavy traffic and road construction. It is also my understanding that we are paid by the shortest practical way from point A to point B and calculated schedules of delivery are at an average speed of 50 mph. or 80 km/h. while these shortest practical routings are often limited to 25, 35, and 45 mph. Please, let me know how we actually make the scheduled time of delivery within the allowed time, for after spending 24 years driving a commercial vehicle, I still donot acheive such performances. Please consider equally as important the fact that for a driver to be getting two days off every fifth or sixth week while he is working a minimum of twelve hours per day awaiting these precious days off. A driver cannot be alert, competant and comfortable in his performances under such conditions. We have to realise that we weigh 40 tons and that we are loaded to the limit most of the time and also that sometime we have to run on low fuel in order to respect the weight limit laws. In restrospect, I firmly disaprove of these working conditions and strongly suggest that some improvement be implemented, where appointments are concerned. I myself wish to advise you that I shall no longer consider the times of appointments for delevery unless reasonable time is granted to do so in consideration of the forementioned personal needs.

Mr. McNeil please consider the following duties we must perform and that for wich is paid or unpaid or benevolant.

Paid Benevolant 28/practical mile run a) Fulling tractor delivry time after 2 1/2 hrs b ) 2 1/2 per client(loading) at customer c) Calling dispatch(average 2 hrs/day) d) customer clearance e) 2 1/2 hrs per client(unloading) f) waiting for load g) paperwork

In resume on this point,I usually am at work for 16 hrs a day while being paid for miles only wich adds to my frsutations when I calculate my meal expenses etc which does not permit me to at least drive without worring about my rent and other utilities usually late paid.

Another point brought to my attention is the fact that you now want us to adjust the brakes on trailers. So I was told on October 14th, 1992 when I asked a dispatches for a P.O. for brake adjustments on trailer # 4403 and was asked to buy a 9/16" key so as to do it myself. It would be easier if I was informed asto its legality in the United States where we do most of our driving. I already know that in some Canadian provinces, it isn't legal and even if it is, brakes are too important considering the weight we carry for me to take that responsibility.

In reference to responsibility, I think it should be understood that I cannot perceive your way of thinking when people don't earn enough to make a decent living have to accept responsibility so costly that an important and prosperous international conglomerate such as the "Irving Group" would not think of being liable for such responsibilities from where the use of leased trucks trailers and Personal Agencies are hired. If a mishap should happen, and they do, the driver is sent to judgement as alone and as easily as old time Christians were sent to the Arena and fed to the lions. This has proven to be the case before in the trucking industry and it is the main reason for my intervention in this situation. It has to change in order for professional drivers to be reinstated in the industry as responsible and respected as professionals and not regarded as happy go lucky Bozos endangering public lives. I have spoken to many drivers and they were saying that alternatives to legalities needed to be used in order to make it and these alternatives ranged from a multitude of logbooks to electrical speedometers that shut off with ignition thus permitting to improve miles driven and comsequently payroll. This is not my way of operating and therefore I insist that the present conditions be revised so as to improve the safety on the roads, not only for us drivers, but for the population in general. It is your duty to improve these conditions as it is mine to report them.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and hoping to hear from you very soon, I remain

respectfuly yours,

GUY BOUDREAULT - 9020

P.S.: Enclosed, you will find :

a) logbook sheets b) trip sheets c) pay slips d) payroll breakdown e) Sunbury "Memorandum" f) today's trucking exherps g) Copies of presentation to all organisms concerned.

ID: nht91-7.26

DATE: December 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Matthew J. Plache -- Esq., Gardner, Carton & Douglas

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 10-17-91 from Matthew J. Plache to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6577)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an opinion of whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)), if it were to sell Daihatsu HIJET vehicles in accordance with specifications contained in a recent Request for Bid issued by the City of Los Angeles. According to your letter, HIJETS are general purpose off-road utility vehicles that are not intended for use on the public roads, streets or highways and, as such, do not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The City of Los Angeles Request for Bid, among other things, specifically required vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and required the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that it would be a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. A Request for Bid containing provisions similar to those set forth by the City of Los Angeles would indicate that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

By way of background information, the issue of whether vehicles such as HIJETs are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act was addressed by NHTSA in an October 31, 1988 interpretation letter addressed to Mr. Hiroshi Kato of Mitsubishi. That letter addressed the Mitsubishi SH27 lightweight industrial truck, which we understand, and you state, is very similar to the Daihatsu HIJET. At that time, Mitsubishi was considering whether to import the SH27.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." The agency has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. NHTSA has also concluded that vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary

and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated.

In addressing the SH27, NHTSA noted that the vehicle was not easily classified under these groupings. On the one hand, it has a body configuration nearly identical to standard trucks, can obtain a maximum speed of approximately 25 mph, and could be registered for use on the highways of several foreign countries. These factors suggested that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, Mitsubishi stated that the vehicle was intended to be used only for off-road applications, that it would be advertised and promoted for off-road purposes only, and that it would contain four warning labels stating "Warning: Off Road Use Only." These factors suggested that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicle.

In instances where the agency is asked whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle when it has both off-road and on-road operating capabilities, and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, the agency has applied five factors in offering its advice. These factors are:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on the public roads.

Based on the representations in Mitsubishi's letter, NHTSA concluded that the SH27 did not appear to be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act. In addition to the other factors noted above which suggested that the SH27 should not be considered a motor vehicle, Mitsubishi had stated that its dealers would be instructed that the vehicle was to be used solely for off-road purposes-and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in this country. NHTSA stated, however, that it would reexamine its conclusion if it learned,

for example, that the vehicle was in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

With this background information in mind, I will now address your question whether Daihatsu America, Inc. would be in violation of Federal law, including section 108(a)(1) of the Safety Act, if it were to sell HIJET vehicles in Accordance with City of Los Angeles bid specifications that require vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and require the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them. Section 108(a)(1)(A) reads as follows:

No person shall --

(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 114 . . . .

It is our opinion that it would be a violation of this section for a manufacturer or dealer to knowingly sell or offer to sell a HIJET vehicle (which does not comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards) to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways. The reason for this is that the only possible argument that a HIJET vehicle is not a motor vehicle is that it is intended solely for off-road use. The knowing sale to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would nullify this possible argument. Moreover, a Request for Bid containing provisions requiring vehicles that are capable of being registered for street use in California and requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicles and obtain license plates for them demonstrates that the customer intends such use of the vehicle.

Further, such action by Daihatsu or its dealers would demonstrate that HIJETs should be considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act and subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I note that NHTSA's October 31, 1988 opinion that the similar Mitsubishi SH27 would not be considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act was premised on certain representations by Mitsubishi. The knowing sale of such a vehicle to a customer for use on the public roads, streets or highways would be inconsistent with the representation that the vehicle was intended solely for off-road use. I also note that the provision in the City of Los Angeles Request for Bid requiring the contractor to apply to register the vehicle and obtain license plates for them is inconsistent with one of the specific understandings set forth in that opinion.

You stated that Daihatsu is concerned about this matter because it has recently received a number of similar solicitations for HIJET-like vehicles which could be interpreted as solicitations for on-road vehicles. You stated that because of its concerns about potential violations of Federal law, Daihatsu has refrained from submitting a bid in accordance with the City of Los Angeles request. You also expressed concern that

other suppliers of similar vehicles apparently do not share Daihatsu's concern and indicated that the Los Angeles contract was recently awarded to a supplier of the Mitsubishi SH27. Please be advised that we are referring your allegations to our Office of Enforcement to determine whether there has been a violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act.

With respect to Daihatsu, I note that the receipt of a number of such solicitations may suggest a general perception that the HIJET is appropriate for on-road use. NHTSA has determined that a vehicle is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding appropriate use. Thus, if Daihatsu wishes to continue to classify the HIJET as a non-motor-vehicle, it should ensure that its customers do not plan to use them for on-road use.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this topic, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 06-002617as

ID: 10-004142 -- Toyota CAFE credit transfer banking -- 5 Jul 11 final for signature

ID: nht94-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Gerald Plante

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

Saab has made some updates to our anti-theft alarm systems in our 1995 model year Saab 900 models. I am sorry I missed your return call. I was hoping we could have had some discussion about NHTSA's current evaluation guidelines on the telephone before submitting written materials. As a way of introduction, I have taken David Raney's place as Saab's Manager of Product Compliance.

Saab views the changes in 1995 components and designs with our anti-theft systems as de minimis ones that would enhance the anti-theft effectiveness of the 1994 alarm. To the extent permitted in 49 CFR Part 543.9, Saab is requesting permission to modify our existing exemption on the Saab 900.

The enclosed material is primarily updates of the material provided to NHTSA on March 25, 1993. Briefly, the changes involve the following:

1. Remote control added. 2. Arming/disarming of alarm/immobilizer functions from remote control only. 3. Remote control operation of the central locking system added. 4. Immobilizer function expanded by adding fuel pump and ignition disengagement to the existing starter motor disengagement.

We would very much appreciate your review of this material to confirm that NHTSA agrees with Saab on the above points. Please feel free to contact me at (404) 279-6377.

Given the definition of "carline" in Part 541.4(b), all 1995 Saab cars labelled as 900 models belong to one carline: Saab 900.

The basis of our petition for exemption is the specification of an effective anti-theft system on all Saab 900 models as standard equipment. In addition, this carline will be specified with an anti-theft radio system, which will further reduce the incidence of auto theft involving Saab cars.

Carline Description

1995 Saab 900 Carline: Body Style Model Designation Engine Variant 2-door hatchback 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 4-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 4-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door convertible 900 4 cyl., 16-valve

Anti-Theft System Description-MY 1995 Saab 900

The system consists primarily of the following components and functions:

Components

Audible signal device Electronic control module Remote control (2) Lock assembly protective covers Door-mounted switches (4) Hood-mounted switch Hatch/trunk lid-mounted switch Light-emitting diode (LED-system status indicator light) Glass breakage sensor Anti-Theft system window warning label (2) Three circuit disengagement relay (starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition)

Functions

Central door/lock/unlock from driver and front passenger door locks Dead-bolt locking of all doors and hatch/trunk lid from driver's door lock Starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition disengagement with alarm activation Horn sounding with alarm activation. Turn signal indicator flashing with alarm activation Arm/disarm from remote control Hatch/trunk lid lock/unlock and temporary disarming of the alarm from the remote control

Attachment I contains a wiring diagram depicting the Saab 900 anti-theft system circuitry and electric/electronic components. Attachment II depicts the location of the above-listed components. The vehicle depicted is the Saab 900 four-door hatchback. The two-door hatchback and convertible is identical to the four-door version, with the exception of the added rear passenger doors. Locking features for the rear passenger doors are identical to the front passenger locking features. The two-door convertible differs from the two-door hatchback only in that it has a conventional trunk, which is isolated from the passenger compartment by the rear seatbacks.

Functional Description

From the driver's, or front passenger's door lock, using the ignitiiion key or the remote control, the operator may activate or deactivate the central locking system by turning the key 45 degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively. In the locked position, all doors, including the hatch/trunk lid, are electro-mechanically locked. It is not possible to lock the doors while they are open (The lock plunger will not depress while the door is open); doors can only be locked from outside when the door is closed by using the ignition key in the door lock or the remote control.

From the dirver's door lock only, if the key is turned an additional 45 degrees in the same direction and withdrawn from this position, the dead-bolt is activated. This means that the door handles and lock devices are disengaged in the locked position, forcing an intruder to crawl through a broken window in order to enter the vehicle. The operator can not activate or deactivate the dead-bolt feature from the remote control.

From the left button on the remote control only, the alarm and immobilization features are armed. In armed condition, the vehicle doors, hatch/trunk, hood and windows are protected by the alarm system. If an attempt is made to enter the vehicle, an audible signal device (105-118 decibels) will sound for 30 seconds and the turn signals will flash for 300 seconds. If the alarm is disarmed within 30 to 300 second period, the horn is interrupted and the turn signal indicators cease flashing. If another trigger signal occurs (e.g., trunk) during this 30 or 300 second period, each function resets for another 30 or 300 second period, from the moment of retriggering.

At the same time, the starter motor, the fuel-pump and the ignition systems are automatically disabled for 30 minutes. If a renewed attempt is made to enter the vehicle, all systems will again react as described above. The anti-theft alarm can be disarmed idefinitely from the left button on the remote control, or temporarily from the hatch/trunk lid, using the right button on the remote control. In the latter case, the alarm rearms automatically ten seconds after the hatch/trunk lid is again closed.

In addition to the active systems described above, several passive anti-theft features further deter vehicle entry and theft. All door lock mechanisms are covered, and recessed inside the door, making it extremely difficult to unlock a door using an instrument slid down between the window and outer door skin. Furthermore, because the latch mechanism is located in the door, rather than in the B-pillar, it is much more difficult to unlatch the door using an instrument slid in between the door and B-or C-pillar. Also, the interior door lock plungers are of a design that is impossible to snag with a wire inserted between the weatherstip and window glass.

Functional Description continued

The Saab 900 ignition key and keylock, which is used to activate and deactivate the anti-theft system, are of a design unique to Saab, and are virtually impossible to "pick". The ignition key is also difficult to duplicate on the open market as a special blank, special key outlining equipment, and access to Saab key codes are required. Key blanks and codes are protected within the Saab corporate and dealer network.

The radio is designed to be extremely difficult to remove without the use of a special extraction tool. Once disconnected from a power-source, the radio will not function again unless a unit-specific, four-digit access code is keyed in. The radio facia is also an uncommon size, making it impractical to install in a different model vehicle.

A dash-mounted LED is used to indicate the various states of the alarm as follows:

1. Arming: The LED is lit for ten seconds.

2. Disarming: The LED is lit for one second.

System triggered during arming procedure: The LED Blinks at half-second intervals for 10 secons.

4. System triggering input cancelled during arming procedure: The LED stops blinking, and remains lit for 10 seconds.

5. Disarming from hatch/trunk lid: The LED is lit for 10 seconds after unlocking the hatch/trunk lid, and again for 10 seconds after closing it.

6. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) activated (ignition on): Teh LED is off.

7. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) pressed continuously (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

8. Glass breakage sensor, override switch (M95) activated (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

9. Disarmed system: The LED is off.

10. Armed system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

11. Activated system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

12. Self-armed three circuit disengagement: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

The system is protected against false activation from such common occurrences a shaiking or knockng, sound wave vibration, air turbulence, and temperature or light changes. In addition, the anti-theft system is equipped with a self-diagnostic system, which initiates a 10 second self-check function each time the system is armed. If a failure is detected, a fault code is stored, and the LED will blink for 10 seconds after arming the alarm (rather than remaining steadily lit for 10 seconds) as long as the code is left in the memory. Other system functions remain undisturbed. Diagnostic communication with the electronic control moduel can be initiated through the use of a special Saab Electronic diagnostic scanning tool when the alarm is unarmed.

Saab Automobile 900 MY95 Alarm Immobilizer Parts list:

900

INDEX PART NAME SAAB PART NUMBER:

%Q1. Horn assembly 44 93 443 2. El. unit anti-theft system 45 88 182 3. Window warning label 95 68 049 4. Theft security lock/unlock switch 43 27 292 5. C-lock/security lock motor driver side 43 26 773 6. C-lock/security lock motor passenger 43 26 781 side 7. C-lock/security lock motors right read 43 26 799 doors 8. Door switch driver and passenger door 44 08 423 9. Door switch rear doors 44 08 423 10. Hatch/trunk lid switch 44 08 423 11. Hood switch 43 23 259 12. Glass breakage sensor/lamp 45 50 869 Convertible (black) 45 50 851 13. Central lock unit 40 90 991 14. L.E.D. 40 90 991 15 Remote control 45 50 075

GP/abh Enclosures

ID: nht94-6.15

DATE: April 25, 1994

FROM: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TO: Barbara Gray -- Office of Market Incentives, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/94 from Barry Felrice to Gerald Plante

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gray:

Saab has made some updates to our anti-theft alarm systems in our 1995 model year Saab 900 models. I am sorry I missed your return call. I was hoping we could have had some discussion about NHTSA's current evaluation guidelines on the telephone before submitting written materials. As a way of introduction, I have taken David Raney's place as Saab's Manager of Product Compliance.

Saab views the changes in 1995 components and designs with our anti-theft systems as de minimis ones that would enhance the anti-theft effectiveness of the 1994 alarm. To the extent permitted in 49 CFR Part 543.9, Saab is requesting permission to modify our existing exemption on the Saab 900.

The enclosed material is primarily updates of the material provided to NHTSA on March 25, 1993. Briefly, the changes involve the following:

1. Remote control added. 2. Arming/disarming of alarm/immobilizer functions from remote control only. 3. Remote control operation of the central locking system added. 4. Immobilizer function expanded by adding fuel pump and ignition disengagement to the existing starter motor disengagement.

We would very much appreciate your review of this material to confirm that NHTSA agrees with Saab on the above points. Please feel free to contact me at (404) 279-6377.

Given the definition of "carline" in Part 541.4(b), all 1995 Saab cars labelled as 900 models belong to one carline: Saab 900.

The basis of our petition for exemption is the specification of an effective anti-theft system on all Saab 900 models as standard equipment. In addition, this carline will be specified with an anti-theft radio system, which will further reduce the incidence of auto theft involving Saab cars.

Carline Description

1995 Saab 900 Carline: Body Style Model Designation Engine Variant 2-door hatchback 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 4-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door hatchback 900 6 cyl., 24-valve 4-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door hatchback 900 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 4 cyl., 16-valve 2-door convertible 900 Turbo 6 cyl., 24-valve 2-door convertible 900 4 cyl., 16-valve

Anti-Theft System Description-MY 1995 Saab 900

The system consists primarily of the following components and functions:

Components

Audible signal device Electronic control module Remote control (2) Lock assembly protective covers Door-mounted switches (4) Hood-mounted switch Hatch/trunk lid-mounted switch Light-emitting diode (LED-system status indicator light) Glass breakage sensor Anti-Theft system window warning label (2) Three circuit disengagement relay (starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition)

Functions

Central door/lock/unlock from driver and front passenger door locks Dead-bolt locking of all doors and hatch/trunk lid from driver's door lock Starter motor, fuel pump, and ignition disengagement with alarm activation Horn sounding with alarm activation. Turn signal indicator flashing with alarm activation Arm/disarm from remote control Hatch/trunk lid lock/unlock and temporary disarming of the alarm from the remote control

Attachment I contains a wiring diagram depicting the Saab 900 anti-theft system circuitry and electric/electronic components. Attachment II depicts the location of the above-listed components. The vehicle depicted is the Saab 900 four-door hatchback. The two-door hatchback and convertible is identical to the four-door version, with the exception of the added rear passenger doors. Locking features for the rear passenger doors are identical to the front passenger locking features. The two-door convertible differs from the two-door hatchback only in that it has a conventional trunk, which is isolated from the passenger compartment by the rear seatbacks.

Functional Description

From the driver's, or front passenger's door lock, using the ignitiiion key or the remote control, the operator may activate or deactivate the central locking system by turning the key 45 degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise, respectively. In the locked position, all doors, including the hatch/trunk lid, are electro-mechanically locked. It is not possible to lock the doors while they are open (The lock plunger will not depress while the door is open); doors can only be locked from outside when the door is closed by using the ignition key in the door lock or the remote control.

From the dirver's door lock only, if the key is turned an additional 45 degrees in the same direction and withdrawn from this position, the dead-bolt is activated. This means that the door handles and lock devices are disengaged in the locked position, forcing an intruder to crawl through a broken window in order to enter the vehicle. The operator can not activate or deactivate the dead-bolt feature from the remote control.

From the left button on the remote control only, the alarm and immobilization features are armed. In armed condition, the vehicle doors, hatch/trunk, hood and windows are protected by the alarm system. If an attempt is made to enter the vehicle, an audible signal device (105-118 decibels) will sound for 30 seconds and the turn signals will flash for 300 seconds. If the alarm is disarmed within 30 to 300 second period, the horn is interrupted and the turn signal indicators cease flashing. If another trigger signal occurs (e.g., trunk) during this 30 or 300 second period, each function resets for another 30 or 300 second period, from the moment of retriggering.

At the same time, the starter motor, the fuel-pump and the ignition systems are automatically disabled for 30 minutes. If a renewed attempt is made to enter the vehicle, all systems will again react as described above. The anti-theft alarm can be disarmed idefinitely from the left button on the remote control, or temporarily from the hatch/trunk lid, using the right button on the remote control. In the latter case, the alarm rearms automatically ten seconds after the hatch/trunk lid is again closed.

In addition to the active systems described above, several passive anti-theft features further deter vehicle entry and theft. All door lock mechanisms are covered, and recessed inside the door, making it extremely difficult to unlock a door using an instrument slid down between the window and outer door skin. Furthermore, because the latch mechanism is located in the door, rather than in the B-pillar, it is much more difficult to unlatch the door using an instrument slid in between the door and B-or C-pillar. Also, the interior door lock plungers are of a design that is impossible to snag with a wire inserted between the weatherstip and window glass.

Functional Description continued

The Saab 900 ignition key and keylock, which is used to activate and deactivate the anti-theft system, are of a design unique to Saab, and are virtually impossible to "pick". The ignition key is also difficult to duplicate on the open market as a special blank, special key outlining equipment, and access to Saab key codes are required. Key blanks and codes are protected within the Saab corporate and dealer network.

The radio is designed to be extremely difficult to remove without the use of a special extraction tool. Once disconnected from a power-source, the radio will not function again unless a unit-specific, four-digit access code is keyed in. The radio facia is also an uncommon size, making it impractical to install in a different model vehicle.

A dash-mounted LED is used to indicate the various states of the alarm as follows:

1. Arming: The LED is lit for ten seconds.

2. Disarming: The LED is lit for one second.

System triggered during arming procedure: The LED Blinks at half-second intervals for 10 secons.

4. System triggering input cancelled during arming procedure: The LED stops blinking, and remains lit for 10 seconds.

5. Disarming from hatch/trunk lid: The LED is lit for 10 seconds after unlocking the hatch/trunk lid, and again for 10 seconds after closing it.

6. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) activated (ignition on): Teh LED is off.

7. Glass breakage sensor override switch (M95) pressed continuously (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

8. Glass breakage sensor, override switch (M95) activated (ignition off): The LED blinks at half-second intervals for 10 seconds.

9. Disarmed system: The LED is off.

10. Armed system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

11. Activated system: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

12. Self-armed three circuit disengagement: The LED blinks at 2 second intervals until the system is disarmed.

The system is protected against false activation from such common occurrences a shaiking or knockng, sound wave vibration, air turbulence, and temperature or light changes. In addition, the anti-theft system is equipped with a self-diagnostic system, which initiates a 10 second self-check function each time the system is armed. If a failure is detected, a fault code is stored, and the LED will blink for 10 seconds after arming the alarm (rather than remaining steadily lit for 10 seconds) as long as the code is left in the memory. Other system functions remain undisturbed. Diagnostic communication with the electronic control moduel can be initiated through the use of a special Saab Electronic diagnostic scanning tool when the alarm is unarmed.

Saab Automobile 900 MY95 Alarm Immobilizer Parts list:

900

INDEX PART NAME SAAB PART NUMBER: %Q1. Horn assembly 44 93 443 2. El. unit anti-theft system 45 88 182 3. Window warning label 95 68 049 4. Theft security lock/unlock switch 43 27 292 5. C-lock/security lock motor driver side 43 26 773 6. C-lock/security lock motor passenger 43 26 781 side 7. C-lock/security lock motors right read 43 26 799 doors 8. Door switch driver and passenger door 44 08 423 9. Door switch rear doors 44 08 423 10. Hatch/trunk lid switch 44 08 423 11. Hood switch 43 23 259 12. Glass breakage sensor/lamp 45 50 869 Convertible (black) 45 50 851 13. Central lock unit 40 90 991 14. L.E.D. 40 90 991 15 Remote control 45 50 075

GP/abh Enclosures

ID: GAO telematics Sept 13

ID: 17513mer.b-i

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about the test requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for a child restraint system you plan to sell. You believe that the system is a "built-in" child restraint system under Standard 213 and ask for confirmation that the restraint will not be tested in "misuse" configurations, i.e., installed on the testing apparatus in ways contrary to Mercedes-Benz's instructions for using the restraint. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret that we cannot confirm it.

You describe the restraint as follows:

The system is composed of two parts; an integrated booster cushion and an add-on impact shield. The booster cushion is operated by a push-button. When activated, a portion of the rear seat of a vehicle equipped with the system raises to form the booster cushion. . . .[Daimler-Benz AG's (DBAG's)] integrated child restraint system is a progressive system designed for use with children as they grow older. The impact shield is designed for use in conjunction with the booster seat for children who weigh 9 to 18 kg (20 to 40 lbs.). The impact shield is secured directly in front of the child by the lap and shoulder belt with the "legs" of the shield stabilized by being placed on both sides of the booster cushion. Without the presence of the booster cushion, the "legs" of the impact shield would collapse making use of the shield alone unrealistic. The design of the impact shield acts to secure the child's torso and to keep the child's legs fixed. Children who weigh 18 to 36 kg. (40 to 80 lbs.) only need the booster seat and standard lap and shoulder belt to be properly secured. Children who weigh more than 36 kg (80 lbs.) may use the conventional lap and shoulder belts.

For convenience, we have depicted these recommended weight ranges and restraint configurations in the following table:

DBAG'S RECOMMENDATIONS

Your specific questions concern how NHTSA would test the restraint. You want us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children under 40 lb., the agency would test the system using both the booster and the shield with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You also ask us to confirm that when the restraint is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt. You would like us to concur that "At no time, would testing of the system be required that involved use of the shield without the booster."

We agree with some of your statements but do not agree with others. We agree that the shield would not be tested without the booster. Standard 213 defines a "child restraint system" as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." An impact shield is designed "to restrain. . . children." The standard also defines an "add-on" child restraint system as "any portable child restraint system." A portable impact shield that is sold to consumers without any other accompanying parts would be an add-on child restraint system and, obviously, would be tested to Standard 213's requirements without any other part. Your shield, however, is merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system. The shield cannot even support itself on its "legs" without the booster cushion. Because of these factors, we do not consider your impact shield to be an add-on child restraint system. The shield itself would not be tested to the requirements of Standard 213 without the booster.

However, there is a question of whether your restraint system (booster cushion with impact shield) is a "built-in child restraint system" under Standard 213 (S4). Configured in the mode used to restrain children under 40 lb., the restraint does not meet the standard's definition of a "built-in child restraint system."

The standard defines "built-in child restraint system" as "a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA has used the term "integral" in the context of Standard 213 to mean "formed as a unit with another part." See, e.g., April 29, 1980 letter to Mr. Koziatek (copy enclosed). The add-on impact shield would not be formed as a unit with the motor vehicle. Also, the add-on shield would not be "permanently installed" in the vehicle. Because of these factors, we would not consider the add-on shield to be part of the built-in child restraint system. Accordingly, we would not use the shield when testing the restraint in Standard 213 compliance tests.

This means that the booster would have to meet Standard 213's requirements when configured so as to consist of the cushion alone with the lap and shoulder belts, without the shield, and when tested with each of the appropriate test dummies specified in the standard. The standard specifies that child restraints recommended for children weighing 20 to 40 lb. are tested with a dummy representing a 3-year-old child. Because the add-on shield is not part of the built-in system, it would not be used in the compliance test using the 3-year-old dummy, notwithstanding any instructions you might provide to consumers to use the shield. Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.

Standard 213 does not prohibit you from voluntarily providing add-on pieces to possibly improve the performance of your built-in restraint. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, the restraint must provide a minimum level of safety and meet Standard 213's requirements without use of the add-on components, to ensure that the restraint will provide adequate protection in the event the add-on components are not used. Of course, if Mercedes-Benz redesigned this seat to assure that the shield was "integral" and "permanently installed," these considerations would not apply.

With respect to the restraint's configuration for older children, Standard 213 also specifies that a test dummy representing a 6-year-old child is used to test a child restraint that is recommended for children weighing 40 or more lb. Accordingly, we would also use the 6-year-old dummy in compliance tests to test the booster cushion and lap and shoulder belts. We agree with you that when the booster is tested in the configuration intended for children greater than 40 lb., the booster would be used with the vehicle's lap and shoulder belt, without the shield.

There is another matter we would like to address, concerning your labeling of the restraint for children weighing as little as 20 lb. You should note that S5.5.5(f) of Standard 213 prohibits manufacturers from recommending booster seats for children less than 13.6 kilograms (30 lb.). This prohibition is based on test data that showed that the 20 lb. dummy (representing a 9-month-old child) was consistently ejected from booster seats in 30 mile per hour dynamic tests. (See final rule adding the prohibition to Standard 213, 59 Fed. Reg. 37167, July 21, 1994.) NHTSA believes children weighing approximately 20 to 30 lb. need a restraining system that provides a higher degree of upper torso and crotch restraint, such as that provided by convertible or toddler restraints, than that provided by a booster seat. Accordingly, the DBAG booster seat must not be recommended for children weighing less than 30 lb.

We would like to take this opportunity to make one last point before closing. In arguing that the DBAG booster seat should be tested only in accordance with your instructions for using the restraint, you state that Standard 213 "was not designed to sanction improper use or misuse of any child restraint system...." Standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problem of misuse of child restraints. It does so by requiring restraints that have features that are likely to be misused to meet performance requirements when installed on the test seat assembly in the "misuse" mode. For example, because NHTSA determined that parents were not attaching the top tethers of child restraints when installing the restraints in their vehicles, Standard 213 was amended to require restraints that have tether straps to meet the standard's requirements with the tether unattached. (See S6.1.2(a)(1), requiring restraints to be secured using only a lap belt and without a tether.) Standard 213 also addresses misuse by standardizing certain aspects of child restraints, such as the manner of installation, to reduce the chance of confusion and incorrect use resulting from such confusion. We believe that the likelihood that parents will misuse a built-in system is reduced when all the components needed to restrain the child are built into the child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have other questions.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.8/4/98